Before you read this article, let me be perfectly clear. I AM NOT BRINGING UP THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE AGAIN. I'm just annoyed how the California courts can ignore the clear vote of the people and continue to pass their own version of the law.
Sacramento Judge: No To California
Voters, Yes To Homosexual Marriage By
Thomasson: "Judge McMaster Should Be Recalled"
Sacramento â Campaign for California Families, one of two plaintiffs in the marriage-protection cases â Campaign for California Families v. Gray Davis and Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. Arnold Schwarzenegger â is shocked and saddened that marriage has been counterfeited and the vote of the people utterly disregarded by a Sacramento judge.
Today, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster ruled in favor of pseudo-âgay marriageâ bills passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature in 2001 and 2003. The ruling upholds AB 205, which is commonly known as âgay marriage by another nameâ and AB 25, which awarded nearly 15 rights of marriage to same-sex couples. AB 205 is scheduled to go in effect in January 2005.
Both laws were passed despite 61.4 percent of California voters approving Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative in March 2000. The judge ignored the clear and plain reading of the State Constitution (Article II, Section 10(c)) which prohibits the Legislature from amending the âscope and effectâ of what the voters approve.
Based on this constitutional rule, California case law has steadfastly held that an unconstitutional amendment is âany change of the scope or effect of an existing statute, whether by addition, omission, or substitution of provisionsâŠa statute which adds to or takes away from an existing statute is considered an amendmentâ (Franchise Tax Board v. Kenneth Cory, 80 Cal. App.3d 772, 776 (1978)).
In his ruling, Judge McMaster held that Prop. 22 applies to both in-state and out-of-state marriages, therefore prohibiting the California Legislature from creating âsame-sex marriage.â However, the Gray Davis- appointed judge strangely concluded that unless something is called âmarriage,â it doesnât conflict with the voter-approved initiative in 2000.
âJudge McMaster should be recalled,â said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families (CCF), a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization. âMcMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman. The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name. We will appeal and seek justice for California voters and the sacred institution of marriage.â
âWhen the people voted for Proposition 22, they said everything about marriage is naturally for a married man and woman,â said Thomasson. âNo matter what theyâre called, the rights of marriage exclusively belong to a husband and wife. Itâs that beautiful and that simple. Anyone who claims the rights of marriage without being a married man and woman is robbing marriage of its uniqueness and parading a negative role model for impressionable children.â
AB 205 created homosexual âmarriageâ without calling it marriage. The bill specifies that domestic partners âshall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under lawâŠas are granted to and imposed upon spouses.â
âWe call upon the California Supreme Court to jealously guard the vote of the people and protect the rights of marriage for a husband and a wife for whom they belong,â said Thomasson. âJudges who trash the will of the people could suffer the same fate as Rose Bird, who was recalled by California voters in 1986.â
âMarriage, its rights, privileges and benefits, are necessarily only for a man and a woman,â concluded Thomasson. âDistributing marriage rights to non-married couples leaves marriage an empty shell, disrespected and disregarded by ultra-liberal politicians and judges who are out of touch with family values.â
âWhile we are disappointed that the court failed to protect the rights of California voters, all parties knew this case would ultimately be decided by an appellate court,â said Rena Lindevaldsen, Senior Litigation Counsel of Liberty Counsel, which represented Campaign for California Families last month in Sacramento Superior Court. âWe intend to appeal this decision, and are confident that the appellate court will recognize that the voters, in approving Proposition 22, intended to protect not the mere label of âmarriageâ but the very essence of marriage for a husband and wife.â